- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) By means of instant revision the revisionists have prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 6.7.2013, passed by the ACJM, Court No. 4, Etawah in Complaint Case No. 177 of 2012, whereby summoning the revisionists to face trial under section 307 IPC and order dated 6.10.2012, passed by the ACJM, Court No. 4, Etawah in F.R. No. 15 of 2012, the final report has been rejected and the protest petition has been treated as complaint.
(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionists that the police after investigation has submitted final report in the case. However, the learned Magistrate on protest petition of opposite party no. 2 rejecting the final report has taken the protest petition as complaint and proceeded to enquire under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. The contention is that once the Magistrate rejects the final report it means that cognizance has been taken by the Court under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has, therefore, erred in treating the protest petition as complaint, which attracts the provisions of Section 190 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., therefore, the order dated 6.10.2012 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.;